Talk:Canadian Gaelic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleCanadian Gaelic was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 20, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Lexical items[edit]

I have located a document that lists several different Gaelic lexical items unique to Canada here but unfortunately it's a scholarly journal and I can't access the information. Strangely, however, searching through google returns one or two words, so piece-by-piece I am putting together a list. If anyone has access to this journal site (JSTOR) please find out these terms! —Muckapædia 6e mai 2007, 2h12 (UTC+0900) 머크백과 tǂc


I noticed that, although many of my edits to the entire article were reverted again more extensively than I feel was warranted, I did notice that certain things were retained, namely a' Ghàidhlig Chanèidianach alongside a' Ghàidhlig Chanadach this time. That I thought was a reasonable compromise. Also, I believe that my point about advertising the CnG to the exclusion of other groups was finally addressed. Mind you, I think that the CnG is an important promoter of more indiginous colloquialisms. I would recommend a link to a separate page where the CnG, the OGA and various other groups might be listed. Now, I'm trying to take this slow, so hear me out before you start reverting things again. I've changed around the vocabulary section of the page, with some revisions, for these reasons:
1. Simply put, many (but not all!) of the terms are clearly gaelicized English terms. Consider that, in French, one can refer to "un hot dog". To imply that this term would be a French term simply because a French article were placed before it would be silly. The same, I think, is true of taking the English verb "pound", spelling it in Gaelic to approximate English pronunciation and then adding a verbal noun ending and treating it as a Gaelic word is, well, pushing things;
2. The cited references are, let's be honest, somewhat sloppy. Mucky has the reader going to the JSTOR article that he mentions above only to find out that it's going to cost $15 to find out if the citation "may" affirm what he supposes;
3. Anyone who looks up mogans is going to be directed to site where these are now sold as legwarmers for people who wear their kilts in frigid climates. Mogans was a common term among the old people in Cape Breton, but not for moccasins. They were little booties with rubberized soles that were worn around the house. I know people who used to call them that because they used to wear them. More importantly, though, follow the citation that's given for this word and see what comes up.
You all should welcome advice and be willing to absorb as much of it as you can into the article. No one, including myself, doubts that a lot of hard work has gone into this article. If I didn't think it was worthwhile, I wouldn't be trying so hard to dislodge some of you of your death grip on it. Consider all of this before jumping to revert or rushing to send me personal messages threatening to have me banned. Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to prevent you or anyone else to create a page on Comhairle na Gàidhlig. As long as they're balanced, I would welcome another editor on the Gaelic pages.
As far as the loanwords go, I agree, there are a fair few that look like new borrowings. The main question on whether these are significant or not would hinge on the exact phonology of these words, i.e. if a word like feirmeireachd is [ferʲemərʲəxk], then in spite of it being a loanword, it's relevant as a gaelicized word. The problem is, the sources don't record the phonetics but I'd say that most look different enough to be likely instances of gaelicization. There's nothing inherently bad about loanwords, even "traditional" Gaelic is full of them, from pòg to coinneal and they can tell us a lot about the social history of a language. So I'd adive keeping the lot for now without adding too much speculation until more data becomes available.
Check www.faclair.com for mogan, the word even in Dwelly's days seems to have covered a vast array of foot and arm coverings so given the phonetic proximity, I would not be surprised if it came to mean moccassin in Canada.
I don't have a deathgrip on anything, I guess I've just been on here so long I've learned the value of "going slow" unless you can edit with 2 refs per sentence ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicon Citation[edit]

I came across that JSTOR article in 2007 because I was keen for any catalogue of Canadian Gaelic neologisms, regardless of whether or not they were loanwords. I acquired the article, and while I’m not sure if sharing the pdf violates the terms of purchase, send me an e-mail (my username at gmail.com) and we’ll chat about it. The article lists calques and loans exclusively, and makes an interesting case for the notability (if not legitimacy) of loanwords in Canadian Gaelic — basically, Gaelic (unlike Spanish, English or Cumhachd’s example French) is completely dependent on a substrate of English for neologisms. Widespread bilingualism, English-only education and employment, and the complete lack of gaelic-language economy, technology, and manufacturing, all combined to create an environment where the only coinages were borrowed from English. This “crucible” of language change isn’t similar to what was going on in English- Spanish- Portuguese- or French-speaking majority colonies -- and even somewhat different from other minority colonies like “New Jersey Dutch” or “Pennsylvania Dietsch & Texas German”.
On the other hand, I agree that a lexicon of pure loanwords isn’t very remarkable (that doesn’t mean, in my mind, that it wouldn’t be article-worthy, just that it wouldn’t be “maximum excitement”) so I chose the terms I thought were interesting, preferring calques to loans, and open to anything requiring a leap of imagination more strenuous than “commission = còmmission” (ie: the sgillin/penny thing). There are more than 100 entries in the PDF but as they are almost entirely loanwords, I overlooked most of them.
There was a paragraph in this document that mentioned one or two more coinages, but aside from these two PDFs (and possibly one in here?) that’s all I’ve been able to scrape together. The citations are not sloppy, they are just indicative of the complete dearth of information available. I think what’s important to remember is that the debate over whether or not the “source articles are expansive or spartan” and the lexical items “interesting or dull,” — that’s a debate that is very different from one over whether or not the article’s very existence is justified.
Do you have a citation record for any of the indigenous colloquialisms you say are advocated by the CnaG? Are you talking pronunciation, lexicon, traditions? If anything you’ve got would help out the article, by all means throw it in there. Your mogan research, as I’ve maintained from the beginning, is compelling — personally I’m cool with it as is, but is there any possibility of getting a citation? The “death-grip” as you call it is a conditioned response to years of over-zealous editing and poorly-researched contributions. If we could bring this article up to featured-status quality by EOY I’ll take-back everything I’ve said and personally help you take-down the CnaG, Steven Seagal style. — Muckapedia 06:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

Should this page not be called ' Scots Gaelic in Canada' ? There is no dialect difference between scots gaelic in canada and in scotland.. infact cape breton is said to have preserved local gaelic dialects from scotland (eg: the barra accent) better than in scotland...

If you had read the article prior to writing your post, you would have learned that there are documented dialect differences between the Gaelic of Cape Breton and that of Scotland. If you had read the discussion page prior to writing your post, you would have read about the rationale behind the page name.—Muckapædia 6e avr. 2007, 1h17 (UTC+0900) 머크백과 tǂc

Swingbeaver 03h41, 21 August 2005 (GMT-5h00) says:

I noticed that the article was renamed from "Canadian Gaelic" to "Canadian Gaelic language." I have changed it back, because I feel it's important readers understand this is not a language per se, but a regional variety. There are articles on Canadian French and Canadian English, and this page is analagous to those.

Gaelic name[edit]

The Gaelic name was given as Gàidhlig na Canada, which is ungrammatical in Gaelic because Canada is a masculine noun (na is the feminine genitive singular form of the definite article), and it doesn't take the definite article anyway. I changed it to Gàidhlig Chanada, which is grammatically correct, but that is still a neologism and has no Google hits. Probably Gaelic speakers would just call it Gàidhlig ann an Canada ("Gaelic in Canada") or Gàidhlig na h-Alba ann an Canada ("Scottish Gaelic in Canada"). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The terms Gàidhlig na h-Alba ann an Canada or just Gàidhlig ann an Canada are both good choices, far preferable to Canadian Gaelic with its strong implication of linguistic diversion from Scots Gaelic. If we have to go with some term for "Canadian Gaelic", I think Gàidhlig Canèidianach is preferable to Gàidhlig Chanadach. Although the former does violate the broad to broad, slender to slender rule in Gaelic, variations to this rule are not unheard of, i.e., reòthte and dèante. Furthermore, canèdianach does appear in a well-repected published Gaelic dictionary. Chanadach is on-line in at least one location, but on-line sources tend to lack rigorous peer review.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Again, this page has been renamed to "Canadian Gaelic" in accordance with Wikipedia article naming conventions. Currently there are four articles which exist on Wikipedia that describe European languages with Canadian dialects: French, English, Ukranian and Gaelic. The titles of the first three articles are Canadian French, Canadian English, and Canadian Ukrainian.

The special problem with Gaelic is that there are (at least) two distinct living versions (Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic, classified as separate languages by some, seperate dialects by others), and the version pertinent to this article is Scottish Gaelic. By not putting "Scottish" in the title of the article, it becomes ambiguous to some.

It should not be, however, for the following reasons:

  1. Throughout the language's history in this country, it has been almost universally known as -- by both speakers and non-speakers -- as simply "Gaelic." The Scottish variety of Gaelic is the only one to currently have Canadian-born native speakers.
  2. In the UK, where the language originated, the two varieties are commonly referred to as "Irish" and "Gaelic," rather than as "Irish Gaelic" and "Scottish Gaelic." This is necessary to avoid ambiguity. The inclusion of "Canadian" does exactly this for the purposes of this article, and for the purpose of referring to the variety of Gaelic spoken in Canada.
  3. The belief that "Scots Gaelic" or "Scottish Gaelic" is straight-forwardly the name of the language, and that the article should therefore be titled "Canadian Scots Gaelic," "Canadian Scottish Gaelic," or some further combination complicates the article, oversimplifies the issue, hinders intelligibility and ignores all the points I have made above. —Muckapædia 11h08, 21e Octobre 2006 (GMT +9h00)

A name which would be in a similar vein to Canadian French, Canadian English, Canadian Ukrainian etc would be Canadian Scottish Gaelic. French, English and Ukrainian are all specific languages while Gaelic, regardless of how the term may be used colloquially, refers to a language grouping. The title Canadian Gaelic is misleading and is the equivalent of naming the article on French in Canada Canadian Romance/ English in Canada Canadian Germanic. siarach 11:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with regard to your statement:
The special problem with Gaelic is that there are (at least) two distinct living versions (Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic, classified as separate languages by some, seperate dialects by others)
I agree with this point. I've made my own views clear by now that I think there is a direct link between this issue and the insistence by some here such as Muckapedia and Akerbeltz that the advocacy group in Nova Scotia, Comhairle na Gàidhlig, a non-profit society, is given special recognition as a regulator of Gaelic in Canada in the article. In fact, this group is not a regulating authority. For this reason alone, the term "Canadian Gaelic" remains suspect. This concern could easily be addressed by simply renaming the page Scots Gaelic in Canada and limiting the debate over "Canadian Gaelic" to a section within the page itself.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - there is no special problem with regard to these languages anymore than there is with French being part of the dialect continuum of Romance languages. I cannot recall anybody (who is knowledgeable on the issue and speaking in modern times) seriously putting forward the opinion that Irish and Scottish gaelic are anything but seperate languages - the fact that that they are mutually unintelligable stops there being much debate on this issue ( now if a Gaelic dialect continuum still existed there might be reasonable case for an argument but there isnt so there isnt ). Anyway regardless of this the fact remains that the correct article title, if you wish to maintain a level of consistency with the other Canadian language articles you mention, is Canadian Scottish Gaelic. siarach 11:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the recent page move: First of all, Muckapedia, please use the "Move" function when you want to move an article. Don't just replace text with a redirect. If the "Move" function doesn't work because the intended target already has a history, please use WP:RM to get an admin to move the page for you. I have now merged the histories of the two pages, but it's a pain in the ass and I don't want to have to do it again. As for the name itself, I don't think "Canadian Gaelic" is really ambiguous since Irish is almost never called Gaelic unmodified except by a few elderly people in Ireland. "Canadian Scottish Gaelic" does sound rather odd. I was partial to the old name "Scottish Gaelic in Canada" myself. What does the published literature call it? —Angr 11:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would add to this point that Muckapedia is intentionally removing the entire main page edits and and pasting in his preferred earlier version. Furthermore, my comments have intentionally been shifted out of the individual categories initially to a new section entitled Criticism and lately to yet another category called Cumhachd's Edit Wars. This type of deliberate manipulation of the content is contrary to the aims of providing complete, detailed information on this topic.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Shiaraich, the main thrust of your comment seems to be exactly what I hoped to address with the third bulleted point of my original post. For an example of the Scottish Gaelic Language being referred to as simply "Gaelic" by a reputable source, I direct you here, as well as to almost every source document I cited in the Notes and References section of the main article. Gaelic is not to my knowledge a family of languages, as you claim --- if it is then I would enjoy reading your sources. There is no official name for the Scottish Gaelic language, because there is no international body empowered to bestow such a name. The only standard is international consensus, which I agree in matters dealing with the dialect spoken in Scotland is clear ("Scottish Gaelic"), but in discussing the dialect spoken in Canada custom has also been just as clear ("Gaelic"). Among native speakers and their descendants in Canada, the country at the centre of the article, the language is known as "Gaelic," fullstop.

In Cape Breton Scots Gaelic is often referred to simply as Gaelic, but the particular areas in Scotland where the dialects came from are often referred to in Cape Breton as well. No one speaks of "Canadian Gaelic". Instead, older speakers will explain that their dialect is South Uist dialect, or Harris dialect, or Lewis dialect. Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise (for the second time in this page) that there is the potential for confusion, but as the Scottish variety of Gaelic is the only one that may reasonably claim native-speakers born on Canadian soil, there should not be confusion. Scottish Gaelic is a variety of Gaelic in the same sense that Morroccan Arabic is a variety of Arabic (with the only substantial difference being that Scottish and Irish Gaelic are *more* mutually comprehensible than, say, Morroccan and Iraqi Arabic).
Beyond these points, which I really believe have been sufficiently addressed, the additional problem is that the so-called proper title you suggest --- namely "Canadian Scottish Gaelic" --- compels the appearance of another country's name in a language spoken by people with limited ties to that country. You are basically telling Canadian Gaelic speakers that the language they speak is more accurately "Scottish Gaelic," than it is "Canadian Gaelic," even though the speakers are themselves more Canadian than they are Scottish. That's an untenable paradox. —Muckapædia 30e nov. 2006, 21h33 (UTC+0900) 머크백과
First of all Gaelic does indeed refer to a family of languages - as is shown by the very wikipedia articles dealing with the topics. Secondly your final argument is subjective ( as well as being rather peculiar considering Canadian French, Canadian English etc).The language canadian Gaelic speakers speak IS Scottish Gaelic - this is totally undeniable. The fact that its speakers are of Canadian, rather than British/Scottish, nationality has no more a bearing upon the correct designation/name of the language than the Canadian nationality of the Quebecois has on the correct designatiion of their their language as a form of French. Ive said it before and il say it again - colloquial terms/norms/views should not be given precedence over technically correct nomenclature. Mentioned and stated yes, but never give precedence over the correct forms. At the moment this article could well be seen as going against Wikipedia:No Original Research and WP:NPOV and several of the points ive put forward previously stand unanswered - particularly regarding the comparative situation with Canadian French and other languages which you argue should be treated differently to Canadian Scottish Gaelic. I am indeed stating that the language Canadian Gaelic speakers use is more accurately "Scottish Gaelic" just as i would state that speakers of Canadian French speak a language more accurately named "Canadian French" rather than "Canadian Romance". There is no paradox to be found here. siarach 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I really to have to say that this is right on the mark. I have no problem with Muckapedia and a few others disagreeing with it. However, when they manipulate the content of the page and helpful edits, they are engaging in objectionable behavior.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article cannot be named "Scottish Gaelic in Canada" because the standard naming practice has been "Canadian something." Changing this convention for Gaelic would necessarily imply that Gaelic is somehow less Canadian than English, French, or Ukrainian.
The problem is that there is little to no precedent as regards the name of the dialect spoken in Canada. Its speakers call it Gaelic, but you say that's ambiguous. Yet, the dialect exists, and the subject clearly requires a Wikipedia article. I am flattered by your accusation of No Original Research and NPOV, but neither charge resolves the issue at hand.
On the other hand Canadian Scottish Gaelic sounds weird, clearly, but more to the point it is also ambiguous. Primarily, is the Gaelic under discussion Canadian or Scottish? If the language were still called Erse this problem would not exist and you would be unquestionably right. Unfortunately this is not the case, and despite the fact that you feel the name has no bearing, it does — the special nature of *this* language's name in *this* article creates problems. An article entitled Canadian Gaelic, which may be guilty of the sin of not specifying what variety of Gaelic it is exactly, is on the other hand more immediately comprehensible. By changing the name to Canadian Scottish Gaelic, the clarity gained in specifying which variety of Gaelic, is more than outweighed by the impenetrability of the title.
Your definition of Gaelic as the term describing a "family of languages" is interesting though. It would seem then that by merging the Newfoundland Irish article into the Canadian Gaelic article, the problem would be solved. The topic of the article then would be the Gaelic "family of languages" as spoken in Canada, rather than solely the Scottish or Irish varieties.
The analogy with "Canadian Romance" is nonsensical, because the Romance branch of the Indo-European Language family is analogous to the Celtic Branch, as regards Gaelic. Sociopolitically Scottish Gaelic is a fully autonomous language, but linguistically it shares enough in common with Irish Gaelic to arguably define the two as distinct dialects, although whether or not they are mutually intelligible is something else. (I should note here that mutual intelligibility is not the benchmark for whether or not a language is a dialect)...
A better analogy would be Arabic, which is commonly referred to as a language (much like Gaelic) but is in fact a collection of (or your term "family of...") mutually unintelligible languages. If an article was written on, say, a regionally distinct variety of Arabic, like say Levantine Arabic, such a hypothetical article would be analogous to the longstanding article on Scottish Gaelic. Then, if such a language had in turn its own dialect, significant enough to warrant its own article, then, according to the standards I have outlined in my three posts, such an article might be titled Palestinian Arabic, and not, by your standards, Palestinian Levantine Arabic. —Muckapædia 2e déc. 2006, 17h40 (UTC+0900) 머크백과

I have to say I agree with MacRusgail and siarach that we should change the title to the article to "Canadian Scottish Gaelic". Regardless of what your personal perception of the language is, Scottish Gaelic is seen by linguists as being a distinct language from Irish and Manx. I have NEVER heard any scholarly argument to the contrary. Various Arabic dialects may not be perceived this way, but this article isn't about Arabic so that's irrelevant. For instance, Maltese is no more distinct from standard Arabic than colloquial dialects of the latter language. Does that mean that if, hypothetically, there were a dialect of the former language indigenous to Canada we should call it "Canadian Arabic"? Of course not because Maltese is seen as a distinct language. Same with Scottish Gaelic, just because it could, when compared to say Arabic or Kurdish, be considered a dialect of a hypothetical pan-Gaelic language doesn't mean that it is and the name of this article should reflect that.

"Canadian Scottish Gaelic" is not ambiguous as "Scottish Gaelic" is the name of the language, adding "Canadian" just tells you where the dialect is spoken. Any argument that it's ambiguous is equivalent to saying that "Canadian French" is ambiguous as it might lead someone to believe it's spoken in France. Crazygraham (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support any move away from "Canadian Gaelic" to something including the word Scottish. In Scotland it seems to be common to devalue the language by relieving it of the national adjective, something Irish and Manx Gaels don't put up with. And that's the other reason - Manx and Irish are Gaelic too, and Irish has been spoken in Canada. Sure, it's different from the language in Scotland, but so's "Canadian French" and "Canadian English" (although the latter isn't hugely differently).--MacRusgail 17:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic endonyms[edit]

The portions of the article written by myself adhere generally to endonymic language conventions. Multiple names in the article have been supplied in their Gaelic forms --- this has been done in situations where the person's first language was Gaelic, and so their native name (read: true name) was originally Gaelic. For an analagous situation in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Irish Orthography in naming people —Muckapædia 3h00, 2e Novembre 2006 (GMT +9h00)

I would prefer if you only do that in situations where you know for certain the name origins. If we don't know for certain, the name may not have been of gaelic origin. For example, many people wrongly assume that George-Étienne Cartier was named "Georges", assuming that his would be french. Similarly, a "Thomas" might have been named after an english person, etc. --JGGardiner 08:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but Gaelic has a special convention on this matter, owing to its historical development in such close proximity to English. Unlike most other languages, Gaelic-speakers historically had Gaelic names when using Gaelic (or by extension --- and this is the standard that I have employed for this article --- when referring to them in a Gaelic-language context), and English-derivations thereof when using English. Gaelic is one of the only languages in the world to have met a longstanding historical pogrom of assimilation through English --- anglicised placenames and personal names (essentially all proper nouns that Gaelic-speakers might have tried to employ in their English-speaking lives) were historically segregated from English.
In contrast, today in Canada the linguistic situation is the very opposite --- liberal and generally accommodating of linguistic diversity. I don't have the link on hand, but as regards French, there are only thirty or so proper nouns in Canada that are still officially translated between the two offical languages --- all the rest maintain their "native language", that is the original language in which they were named. The same is true of Inuktitut and other native languages. The link is here.
Simply put, George-Étienne Cartier only had one name, because most people only ever have one name. Gaelic speakers, on the other hand, have two, and because Gaelic is the focus of this article, I have used the Gaelic variant of names when the choice is available (ie, when the person was a native speaker of Gaelic). —Muckapædia 26e mai 2007, 12h34 (UTC+0900) 머크패저 TALK/ CONTRIBS

Last Gaelic immigrants in NS[edit]

"It is estimated more than 50 000 Gaelic settlers immigrated to Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island during this period, the last ship arriving in 1840."[9]

The source referenced there doesn't actually say the last ship arrived in 1840. What it actually says is that Scottish emigration to North America was fairly constant from 1815-1870. Perhaps the person who contributed the above meant 1870 instead of 1840, but my sketchy knowledge of history won't permit me to say for sure whether the last ship really did arrive in 1870.

The source referenced above refers to North America as a whole, but I think the date of 1840 is also wrong if applied only to Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. Some of my Gaelic-speaking MacLeod ancestors arrived in Nova Scotia on a ship called the John and Robert in 1843 (they'd left Tobermory on the Catherine but had to change ships in Belfast). I've changed the date from 1840 to between 1815 and 1870. Iordan MacBheatha 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass[edit]

This article is well written and comprehensive. I would even go as far to say that, with a bit of expansion, it would be FA-material. A lot of very good work clearly went into this article! ErleGrey 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could be good, but unfortunately it is impossible to make comments contrary to the agenda of those who are seeking special recognitition for local regional variations of South Uist dialect in the very area of Cape Breton where the CnG is located.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...in Winnipeg, Manitoba; and Eastern Québec"[edit]

This must surely be somewhat limiting. My family on both sides were Gaelic speakers in the District of Assiniboia, later the Province of Saskatchewan; their roots were respectively in Ontario and eastern Quebec, yes, but clearly they briefly brought the language with them. I well recall great aunts and uncles in the 1970s giggling about the fact that all they could now remember were swear words; but the policy of corporal punishment in school for speaking it certainly also pertained there and it seems unlikely there would have been any such policy if instances of its being spoken were rare. Masalai (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pugwash, Nova Scotia[edit]

Pugwash has a population of gaelic speaking residents. All the road sings are in both english and gaelic, but Pugwash isn't mentioned in the article nor placed on the map. Perhaps it's too small, but Pugwash has quite the history. What do you guys thing? Notible enough for inclusion or even a mention? QBasicer (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phonology[edit]

The title Gàidhlig Chanaideanach and the IPA [ˈkɑːlʲəˈ kanatanax] don't seem to match at all... I can see how /ligʲ/ might be a syllable that gets simplified but /lʲə/ look decidedly odd and the lack of lenition and the vowels in /kanatanax/ look fishy too and I'm tempted to redo them according to normal Gaelic pronunciation. Also, the Phonology section uses the Celticist (well, I assume it's the Celticist symbols) N and L - which would need changing to normal IPA. Also, the /r/ isn't clear - is this strong initial /R/ or single slender /r/ - given the comment about the environment I suspect this is orthographic single broad r which can be strengthened to /R/ followed by / ʃ / - though that's techically more of a retroflex /ʂ/. I'm curious, where does this data come from?

Why all the weird spacing of quoted letters: “ l ”? 139.68.134.1 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

A lot of the expansion since this became GA has been uncited. This article needs more citations for non-obvious claims to remain as a GA.YobMod 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Canadian Gaelic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As there has been no reponse to the template, tags or talk page about this article not meeting GA critteria for more than a week, i am starting a reassessment, per the GA request.

Major problems:

  • The Outlook and development is mostly uncited.
  • The list of place names with their translations seems like too much detail - other language article do not have this, and there is no indication why it is here (are the Gaelic names o street signs or somesuch?).
  • There are multiple poorly integrated additions of text since this became GA, particularly in later sections. These need rewriting to give better readability and flow and elimiate single sentence paragraphs.
  • A lot of the above noted uncited and poorly written additions are for too detailed information, such as specific school that teach the language or other specific uses of the language. Only important examples need including, with citations from secondary sources thast indicate someone thinks these are important, rather than primary sources that look like advertising.YobMod 10:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If no action taken within a few days, this article should be failed for failing criteria 1, 2, and 3.YobMod 10:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No response, and needs a lot of work, therefore delisted.YobMod 13:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comhairle[edit]

My sense is that the author(s)is/are promoting this page under the auspices of the private organization Comhairle na Gàidhlig in Nova Scotia. Note that the page lists the "regulator" not just of the wikipedia entry, but of so-called Canadian Gaelic itself as Comhairle na Gàidhlig. In fact, there is no official regulator of Scots Gaelic in Nova Scotia, Canada or anywhere else. What is also troubling here is that there seems to be a distinct agenda involved with respect to the implication that "Canadian" Gaelic is largely indistinguishable from "Cape Breton" Gaelic and that these, in turn, are linguistically and phonemically distinct enough from dialects currently spoken in Scotland to collectively constitute a single separate language. The Canadian/Cape Breton conflation notwithstanding, the evidence given in support of linguistic distinctions is modest at best: It is limited to 1.) favoring one set of dialect features in Nova Scotia (features which are, interestingly, still viable in certain regions of Scotland) to the exclusion of others, 2. listing a handful of English verbs obviously just rendered into Gaelic verbal nouns, and 3.) including a short list of Gaelic nouns supposedly unique to Cape Breton/Canada. Of the three features, the latter presents the strongest case; however, while distinct vocabularies are a feature of vernaculars, the list is not extensive enough and, in at least one example, spurious: mogans. Mogans were actually the name brand in English of an ankle sock with a rubberized bottom which were quite popular in Cape Breton in the 1960s. The word is not common among either English or Gaelic speakers today other than those from the era when they were sold. Thus, in all likelihood, the term would be evidence of an antiquated loan word. In short, the topic demands a far more rigorous examination of the distinction between dialects, vernaculars and languages and more willingness on the part of the promoters to engage peer reviews by means other than censoring changes to the main page and then justifying it through quibbling. Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I disagree with your Gaelic edits, I agree with the first point above in the sense that CnaG is not a regulating authority but a promotion agency. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how stating "that" you disagree is germaine to any of the edits. The attempt to sneak in the CnG as a regulating authority is simply the most embarrassing aspect of the original page and even that was only acknowledged after the last edits were changed back verbatim. Deliberate manipulation of the content to promote a CnG agenda is, I believe, a violation of the terms of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancumhachdgasta (talk • contribs) 00:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down please. I wasn't the one who put the CnaG there. And seriously, starting a thread at the top above all other threads is really bad manners. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is more polite to list comments from the most recent to the least recent. The movement of the comments to the bottom of the page where they appeared to have been buried, renaming them "criticism" and then reverting the main page to its original form without addressing the comments is what constitutes bad manners.

Incidentally, what's your justification for the made up "teangan iondail"? I've read most publications on Gaelic but that's one I've not once come across. I'd also like to point out that it does not match the page name... Akerbeltz (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tha teanga ionadail a' ciallachadh dualchainnt. Coimhead air Stòr-Data Briathrachais. Chan ann dèanta suas a tha e idir. Tha iomadh teanga ionadail ann an Ceap Breatainn, ach thèid iad uile air an lorg ann an Alba cuideachd. Dè tha an reusan gun smaoinich thu gu bheil Gàidhlig ann an Canada cànan diofraichte? Air an adhbhar gu bheil "glug" ann an Eilean na Nollaige? Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't the Gaelic wikipedia, let's keep this in English. And i don't need a dictionary to understand what it means. I was querying its use as a name for the language and in that sense it's made up I suspect. For starters, the use of "teanga" is suspect as that's Irish usage, not Gaelic. It may be in use in some conservative Canadian dialects but I have yet to see evidence of that. And neither me nor any other editor was every trying to maintain that Canadian Gaelic was a distinct language. It is, however, an interesting conglomerate of dialects not found like that in Scotland and hence it is often described as Canadian Gaelic. Like talking about, say, Indian English. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks still do not address any of the issues raised in the original post. Instead, you continue to provide more distractions, such as how you didn't insert the reference to a direct link to CnG, how you feel that we must not use Gaelic here, how you don't have to use a dictionary, how you believe that "teanga" is featured more in Irish, how some Canadian dialects "may" be conservative, and so on. The only point that begins to address the problem of whether this page seeks to manufacture a "Canadian" Gaelic is contained in the quote "neither me [sic] nor any other editor was [ever] trying to maintain that Canadian Gaelic was a distinct language". However, this follows the assertion that "[you] were querying the use [of teanga] as a name for the language. That is, in one instance, you appear to think of Canadian Gaelic as a language, but when you are called on to demonstrate how it qualifies as such, you retreat from that position. You can't have it both ways. More importantly, again, the page fails consistently to demonstrate not only what Canadian Gaelic is, but whether it is even worthwhile to postulate that Scots Gaelic in Canada is just anglicized in some interesting, but largely trivial ways. Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC) (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who queried the appropriateness of Comhairle na Gàidhlig being listed as the controlling body so I responded to that. You then came back querying my adding it in the first place, so I pointed out I didn't. Anyway. CnaG is not the controlling body, let's agree on that. So if we're not listing it as a controlling body, there's no need to list it as such in the infobox under controlling body.

Note that the page has been reverted back to its original, complete with the CnG as the regulating body.

Let's step back about your other points, ok?
  • speakers of Gaelic in Canada speak variants of Scottish Gaelic. Conventionally (open any book on Gaelic linguistics) local forms of Gaelic are named after their geographic origin, e.g. Lewis Gaelic, Argyll Gaelic, Arran Gaelic etc. This does not imply they're separate languages. Calling it Canadian Gaelic falls under the same umbrella. So neither in English nor in Gaelic is there a need to use a convoluted phrase such as "local tongues spoken in Canada". Especially if you cannot verify this is a name used in any publication.

Clearly it's the case that in Scotland "Scots Gaelic" is the language that is being promoted. This is done with the understanding that there are dialects in Lewis, Argyll, Arran and so on, none of which (in principle anyway) receive special preference or require formal public and/or legal acknowledgement in order to be recognized. In Nova Scotia, the situation is the same, with the Office of Gaelic Affairs having a mandate to fund programs which promote the language in a way which acknowledges colloquialisms and regional distinctions found in Nova Scotia. Yes, there are colloquialisms and regional distinctions, but the way in which the term "Canadian Gaelic" is approached seeks to imply that 1: Gaelic as spoken in Canada constitutes an easily recognizable if not a standardized set of variations which qualify it as distinct enough to be thought as as not Scots Gaelic in Canada but Canadian Gaelic and that 2: these differences are limited to the biased set of phonetic "features" listed. In fact, those features listed have not been demonstrated to be unique to Canada at all and certainly are not sufficient to reach the conclusions that they constitute something substantially "other". Incidentally, why anyone would want to?


  • Yes, your use of teanga made me very wary of teangan iondail because teanga in Gaelic is primarily a tongue i.e. the organ. The generic word for "language" is cànan. I could cite a dozen dictionaries to that effect.

Oy. There is no point quibbling about "teanga". Substitute "dualchainnt" if it suits your fancy, but cànan when applied to some imagined generic Canadian Gaelic is not appropriate.

  • I can't remember the name of the page but it's not "my rule" to stick to English on English Wiki talk pages. I'll happily debate in Gaelic with you on the Gaelic page.

'S coma leam.

So overall, CnaG is not the governing body but a promotional agency; Canadian Gaelic has features that distinguish it as the Canadian variant of Scottish Gaelic, making it a Scottish Gaelic dialect, not a language - notwithstanding, this does not preclude us calling it Canadian Gaelic. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, interestingly, with the parameters that you've outlined here, it is at least more reasonable now to consider that term. Apprently the CnG doesn't agree, though, because they're hell-bent on imagining themselves as the gatekeepers of a single dialect of Scots Gaelic spoken in a couple areas in Cape Breton which they pretend constitutes "Canadian Gaelic". Again, the features mentioned do not distinguish it as a generic Canadian variant. There is no generic, unified, standardized or singularly recognizable variant of Scots Gaelic in Canada. Instead, there is South Uist Gaelic in Christmas Island with occasional colloquialisms, a plethora of loan words, and heavily anglicized phonetic features. On the North Shore you can find, among others, Harris Gaelic with occasional colloquialisms, loan words and heavily anglicized phonetics. Do you see?

There is no reason that all of the distinctions, and there are some important ones, can't be celebrated without having to drive a wedge between speakers of Scots Gaelic in Scotland and speakers of Scots Gaelic in Canada or anywhere else in the world! The page needs to be honest about its agenda. I don't believe it is and that's likely one reason why it has been delisted.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to over-state the obvious. Every living natural language is made up of dialects. No one implies that we're dealing with a single, totally uniform form of language when we say British English or American English. And hence one shouldn't read that into Canadian Gaelic either so there's no need to state that it's made up of dialects. CnaG may or may not have its own agenda but just because they may use the term to refer to their own version of it does not mean that suddently all other previous uses of the word are wrong. And referring to it as Canadian Gaelic no more drives a wedge between speakers than a reference to Uist Gaelic being different from Barra Gaelic. Regional variation exists, as we're all aware.
I'm not quibbling about teanga, I'm pointing out it's wrong. It's the organ. Substituting it with dual-chainnt makes it no less "made up". As I pointed out above, the equivalant page for English is called British English, not English tongues in Britain. Why would you want to call it that in Gaelic?

Your transliteration is what is flawed, not the use of either teanga or dualchainnt. There is no need for a separate page called British English. It would best be subsumed under the page English Language. Within that page, we'd have the subheadings United Kingdom, America, Canada. Under UK we'd have Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, etc. Under England we'd have "British Standard English or Queen's English", "London English", etc. Under "London English" we'd have "West End", "East End", etc., where we could discuss those variations.


The page got delisted for the simple reason that too many changes were made to it, most without references so it got delisted.
Akerbeltz (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ancumhachdgasta, I have reverted your edits — and because I hate it whenever my edits are reverted, I want you to understand why I felt it was necessary, and hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement here. I think you’re the first gaelic-speaking Canadian to get involved with the page, thank you for taking an interest!

  1. CnaG agenda – There is no agenda, and given the number of times you make accusations to the contrary I have to say you are tilting at windmills. I included the CnaG reference because it was the only representative organisational body for Canadian gaelic-speakers I know to exist. It liaises with the provincial Oifis and acts on behalf of the community. If you know differently, by all means include your point of view, but please understand there aren’t any political orchestrations behind the content. I live in Ontario, I’ve never met a Gaelic-speaker, and to my knowledge no-one remotely connected with the CnaG has ever seen this page, let alone had influence over its contents. —Muckapedia 19:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The CnG is indeed not the only organization body. There are numerous incorporated societies throughout Nova Scotia who liase with the Office of Gaelic Affairs. However, not even the OGA is a regulating body for Gaelic language in Nova Scotia. To favor any is misleading.
  1. Language vs. dialect vs. tongues – This ole bugaboo? Nowhere on this page does it say Canadian Gaelic is a language — in fact, I think an iteration of the page 5 years ago had the title “Canadian Gaelic Language” but it was quickly changed. There is no difference between “Canadian Gaelic” and “Cape Breton Gaelic” — especially considering Cape Breton is the last refuge for Gaelic in Canada; if there were such a difference, the scope of the article would shift to accommodate it. So they’re still the same thing.—Muckapedia 19:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, the combination of the term Canadian Gaelic and the limited linguistic elements which are designed to illustrate that term, to the exclusion of other identifiable linguistic features, are sufficient to reveal either a myopic understanding of the intracacies of regional Gaelic or a wanton promotion of CnG agenda. In either case, this is an area that requires expansion. However, such efforts are hindered by those who insist on limiting and preventing much needed contributions to the page on this point.
  1. Lexicon — Your mogan research is compelling, but the forum for introducing new research and debating significant changes is the discussion page. You complain about the quality of research supporting the other terms, but the fact is they all have citations. I am the first person to admit that scholarship on the subject is sketchy, but that lies with the scholars and has no bearing on whether or not that section is warranted. This page is the only place on the internet where Canadian Gaelic lexical items culled from multiple sources appear together. To delete an entry because it is no longer current seems rather silly given we are talking about a dialect of a severely endangered language spoken by less than a thousand persons. True, many of the terms are gaelicised english terms, but they come from a source document and it’s not my place (or yours) to judge. Alsatian German contains many loan words in French, does this mean the loan words do not contribute to that dialect’s distinction from Swiss German? (No way josé).—Muckapedia 19:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
To assert that mogan is part of the Gaelic lexicon in Canada now is flawed. A common expression among some older speakers with limited Gaelic is "Tha mi tough". Following your line of reasoning, we should include "tough" as part of the Canadian Gaelic lexicon. Pure nonsense.
  1. Sources — 3 years ago this page successfully won “Good Article” status because a lot of hard, quality work went in to making it. Since then a lot of casual edits executed in poor wiki style, without citing sources, have caused that distinction to be rescinded. When making edits I ask that you be guided by the principle: “It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove”. Several of your edits merited inclusion, but because they weren’t cited, and because the number of problematic edits alongside them was so great, the article was reverted.—Muckapedia 19:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The page contains a reference to a JSTOR article which the author (Muckapedia?) suggests might provide support for a more extensive Canadian Gaelic lexicon. However, the contributor admits that he hasn't read the article. Is this what you mean by citing sources?'
  1. Canadian Gaelic — I can’t for the life of me understand why so many people get bent out of shape over this. Is it because of Scotland’s political history? People see the omission of “Scots” or “Scottish” and assume it’s genocide and clearances all over again? Akerbeltz dealt the final word on this one above, but to summarise: Harris Gaelic is the Scottish Gaelic spoken in Harris, Lewis Gaelic is the Scottish Gaelic spoken in Lewis, and Canadian Gaelic is the Scottish Gaelic spoken in Canada. That’s all the article purports to be about — no agendas, no CnaG politicking. The lexical and phonological data is supported by research, and serves to describe the Gaelic spoken in Canada — but if every syllable of Canadian Gaelic was indistinguishable from Scotland Gaelic (or maybe you’d prefer “Scotland Scottish Gaelic”) it’d still warrant an article, because it’s the only place in the world outside of Scotland where it’s spoken, which in itself is noteable.
Quite frankly, the idea that Scottish Gaelic spoken in Harris contains enough linguistic differences to distinguish it from Scots Gaelic is daft. The problem is that you are playing fast and loose with the terms dialect and language. The language is Scots Gaelic. The language contains dialect features common to certain regions, but these are not sufficient enough to constitute even vernaculars. Thus, they are dialects of Scots Gaelic. The question is whether the dialects found in Canada contain colloquialisms and regional variations different from those in Scotland. They do. Now, let's get to work on revealing how they contribute to the multi-faceted nature of the distinct language which is Scots Gaelic! Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, put simply, you're edit warring. That's dangerous. Also, can you please stop inserting your answers into other people's text? Makes it hard to read.
Secondly, you're not making any sense. You have, for some reason, a personal dislike for the purely descriptive term Canadian Gaelic. For some strange reason, you read all sorts of political and deep linguistic stuff into it. I'm sorry to say that's your problem not ours. Terms like Harris Gaelic and Lewis Gaelic are as acceptable as Canadian Gaelic is, your personal dislikes aside. The few linguistic sources we have that deal with it call it that, not your made up "local tongues". As an aside, what on earth makes you think that in several hundred years of linguistic isolation Canadian Gaelic has *not* developed enough traits to distinguish it from European Gaelic? In broadly the same time frame, South American Spanish, American English and Quebecoise have drifted massively.
Your question is an example the argumentum ad ignorantiam. Learn about it and get back to me. I'll help clarify it for you if you make an effort to see how the question you've asked is irrational.
And while prior expertise is no prerequisite for editing Wikipedia, your comments about there being no need for the British English page show a certain ignorance of basic linguistic understanding. You're welcome to contribute, ideally from published sources, but I would seriously suggest you tread a little more carefully and stick to facts. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bull headed insistence that you're right because you can accuse me of an "ignorance of basic linguistic understanding" isn't helping your case. Stop acting like a child in a sandbox who wants to have his way. Scholarship requires thoughtful insight, Akerbeltz, and cooperation. You're simply trying to dictate. To be honest, you need to step back and let someone more qualified than you, myself included, participate. It's not all about you.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is getting silly. Scores of linguists have published on anything from Argyllshire Gaelic (Nils Holmer, 1938 Studies on Argyllshire Gaelic) to Perthshire Gaelic (Máirtín Ó Murchú 1989 East Perthshire Gaelic). All accept these are dialects of Scottish Gaelic. None of them have any qualms about labelling them according to geographic origin. Now I suggest you go and find a source that uses teangan ionadail in the Canadian Gaelic context before I spend any more time debating this... Akerbeltz (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got about halfway through this before losing the stomach for it. Argumentation is not a substitute for discussion. Ancumhachdgasta, blind reversion to known errors, such as the broken link, is not appropriate. Edit warring is not appropriate. Personal attacks are not appropriate, and wouldn't be even if they weren't hypocritical ("acting like a child in a sandbox who wants to have his way"). Please discuss this; if you can't play in the sandbox together you'll get put in time out (blocked). kwami (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010 edit war[edit]

Agreed. A Chumhachd, don’t delete my signature from my posts on this discussion page — it inhibits clarity. Also, I have told you that there is no CnaG connection nor prejudice, but you continue going back to your original supposition. Why? Additionally, you’ve heard evidence supporting the reasoning behind the article title, but you continue to revisit this without supplying references. Why? Use sources, be respectful, or get banned.

The thing that kills me is that, if you are fluent in Canadian gaelic you could be contributing to this page in a number of constructive ways: at the bottom of the article I have linked to scores of documents and videos in authentic Canadian Gaelic, and I can’t understand any of them. You could be watching interviews with Joe Neil MacNeil or reading issues of Mac Talla and add any lexical innovations you find. That’s certainly what I’d be doing, instead of indulging in this destruction.

MacTalla went out of publication in 1904. Even during the years in which it was publishing, it was not publishing in Canadian Gaelic. You still haven't even begun to demonstrate what that is yet. It was a Scots Gaelic publication in Cape Breton. I'm aware of the numerous interviews collected as part of the Cainnt Mo Mhàthair program. None are proof that there is anything called Canadian Gaelic. They largely reflect dialects of Scots Gaelic common, again, mostly to one favored area in Cape Breton. There is work there to do in identifying regional idioms and colloquialisms, but such efforts are being hindered by the manipulative clique that patrols this and other pages on an hourly basis.

The fact that your edits are destructive is self-evident: Review comparison between edit histories here. Breakdown of select edits follows:

1–3,5 ~Title The article is titled according to Gaelic linguistic precedent. In edit 3 you deliberately destroy a file link, without any attempt to repair the file. Blatant ignorance of how MediaWiki works. Edit 5 is a deletion of the Article title, which contradicts Wikipedia style.
The direct link to CnG in Iona is not a file link for research purposes; it is an effort to advertise and propogate the idea that somehow CnG in Iona is the local linguistic mafia. Move over, boys, there's a new dispensation a-comin'.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7 +sporadically The timeline of the language’s history has not been sporadic, it has been continuous. This means unbroken. Gaelic has never been extinct in Cape Breton, so your edit is demonstrably false.
There are periods of peaks and troughs in which Scots Gaelic gains and loses popularity in Canada as in Scotland. The idea that there is a standard, identifiable thing called Canadian Gaelic which is separate and distinct from the language that we refer to as Scots Gaelic is what is patently false. Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8 +enclaves “isolated enclaves” is more descriptive than “various enclaves”, which employs a weasel word contrary to wikipedia style. Also Cape Breton is an island, so it takes the preposition “on”, not “in”.
The only thing that deserves the moniker weasel are those who are trying to prevent serious critical examination of the content in the original page.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9 -the language is You have replaced three words with nine (“Scots Gaelic with a few identifiable regional variations was”) without contributing a new insight, or adding specificity to improve clarity. There is nothing wrong with the conjunctive phrase “the language is” in this instance, because the language referred to is clearly Scottish Gaelic as it is spoken in Canada.
You're hedging here. However, this comment is, finally, a slightly original way of trying to address the question of the difference between dialects, vernaculars, and languages, but once again it's suspect because it seeks a priori to assert the existence of a standardized language (which I know you want to call a dialect but you still treat as a language) that is distinguishable from Scots Gaelic. Scots Gaelic is the language. Dialects of that language were brought to Canada. Those dialects are still spoken, with regional variations that themselves are not sufficient to constitute a Cape Breton dialect, not to mention the fabricated idea of a Canadian dialect. I mean, come on. You're asserting that Cape Breton dialect is Canadian dialect, which in itself is daft, without even sufficiently demonstrating that there is even a Cape Breton dialect! Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11 +some Your addition of “some” here (“some immigrants newly arrived from Scotland would soon be joined by Loyalist emigrants”) is incorrect. All the immigrants newly arrived from Scotland were joined by Loyalist emigrants, because shortly after the arrival of the former, was the arrival of the latter. ie: First came the one group, then came the other group.
I will review this. My sense in the original was that the author was implying that all Scottish emigrants to the American Colonies were Loyalist. Maybe not, but there was a strong implication in the original that Loyalists were persecuted (see the next gem below) and, for that reason, had to flee to Canada. In fact, many chose that course of action because it suited them financially, not morally or ethically. To imply persecution is to overstate a very complex issue. From an American perspective, the Loyalists might be regarded as traitors, as some Americans are still inclined to think of Vietnam-era draft dodgers who came to Cape Breton and learned Gaelic as a second language. The point is still the same, though. Bias, bias, bias and direct manipulation of the content. Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 -escaping persecution If you’ve studied Canadian history, you know that the Loyalists were escaping persecution. The term Lynch mob originated in this period. So we do not need to replace the descriptor “escaping persecution” with the politically-corrected and uninformative “[those] who refused to sign the Oath of Allegiance to the Continental Congress”. Again, you’ve replaced my three words with your 13 and stripped the sentence of important information in the process. It isn’t important that the Loyalists opted not to sign a certain document, it is important that they were persecuted. In this case three words are better than 13.
You information is embarrasingly flawed on this point and, again, still biased.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That’s at least 9 edits crying out for revision in the first section and the lead alone. Your love affair with the run-on sentence is preventing this page from ever re-attaining “Good Status”.

I don't think you realize what a run-on sentence is. A long, compound-complex sentence is not a run-on.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sutor ne supra crepidam. Use sources, be respectful, or get banned. —Muckapedia 19:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mucky, you're not banning anyone. Take your own advice on the rest of your comment. I'm trying to help. Oh, and your spellings of the Cape Breton placenames in Sandbox 8 is, in many ways, frigged. We'll be visiting that and applying those 25 year old orthographic conventions before long. I suspect those conventions will be new to you. Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather dramatic. I haven't seen Cumhachd edit warring since my last comment. This is a bit much on all sides. Can we wait and see if things have cooled down? kwami (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There will be no cooling down until there is some cooperation. It's not the MuckyAker show.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Poorly researched"? I didn't do any research. I have no idea who is right. I am merely trying to end a childish edit war. Continue and I will block you. kwami (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to reversion 351789157[edit]

Here’s my position: 1) This page has existed for 5 years, predicated on the belief that Scottish Gaelic as it exists in Canada, due to a unique history, culture, lexicon and phonology, is worthy of an article. 2) That article, because of previously cited linguistic precedent and conforming to the standard set by similar articles, has been styled “Canadian Gaelic”. 3) The distinction between a language and a dialect is notoriously liquid, however no-one here asserts that Canadian Gaelic constitutes a language in its own right. Use of the word language within the article refers to “Scottish Gaelic as it is spoken in Canada”. The term Canadian Gaelic refers — transparently — to whatever Gaelic is Canadian; that is, the Gaelic that is spoken by Canadians, in Canada, and transmitting a unique Canadian culture, whatever that may be, and irrespective of how many further dialects it may contain.

The spelling of placenames is not “frigged”, it is the exact same as it is on the referring website. If that site has a problem, fine, change it, that’s okay because that’s what Wikipedia is here for. Just be sure to cite your sources. Edits must be a synthesis of sourced research and scholarship, and supplied with citations. It’s for the editors to ban users, not me, and as you have already been accused of edit warring twice by an editor, yes, you run the serious risk of being banned.

The assumption of good faith is a pillar of Wikipedia. Your very first discussion post was an accusation claiming contributors were politically motivated by including some committee — you’ve been told this isn’t the case, but you keep going back to it. You’ve mentioned it more than ten times, and I don’t understand why. I have no agenda, I just don’t understand why your only contribution to Wikipedia has been defaming the good faith of important contributors to this page. I know its not the “MuckyAker” show, it’s the “cited research and hard work” show. I have no credentials, I’m just the guy who created the page and tried to improve it for the past five years — but Akerbeltz is a highly respected authority on Gaelic and if he doesn’t resent your lumping his name in with mine then I do. Everything written on this page that isn’t about citing sources and following precedent is complete bunkum.

Lastly, I’m sick of you marking-up my commentary, it’s disrespectful. Please add your responses below the comments of others, not within. If you edit my comments I will have to revert the discussion, and no one wants to get into that. I apologise if you took offence to my characterisation of the current dispute as “Cumachd’s Edit War” — I have renamed the section accordingly. Also, because you are nesting your responses within archival threads on this page going back 5 years, and not signing all of your posts, I have highlighted those posts green in the interest of clarity —Muckapedia 20:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


I think that highlighting one person's comments who you happen to disagree with is unfair. He's vocal, but it's because you guys are always running on at the mouth about your expertise and not giving anyone the opportunity to contribute anything other than what gets your stamp of approval.Dwindlespin (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the green text, then that's simply because Cumhach will insist on putting his responses into other people's posts. And I don't mind him being vocal; what makes him difficult to deal with is a) that he prefers to edit war rather than to debate changes deemed controversial and b) that for the most part, he makes little sense. If you have some deep insight into Cumhach's logic, then I'd really appreciate a translation because his objections (to pick one) to "Canadian Gaelic" (along with the sweeping statement denying the need for the British English and American English pages) just don't make any sense. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:dwindlespin is a Wikipedia:sock_puppet. On an unrelated note, does anyone know if the preferred term is “goidelophone”, “gaelophone”, or something else?—Muckapedia 14:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaelophone" gets a handful of hits at Google Books (which reflects usage in edited writing as opposed to writing anywhere on the WWW), while "Goidelophone" gets none. I see no reason not to use the easily understandable "Gaelic speaker" for the noun and "Gaelic-speaking" for the adjective. +Angr 14:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend not to use goidelophone or gaelophone either. "Goidelic speakers" or "speakers of a goidelic language" is the one most commonly encountered in scientific texts I'd say. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
got it. Yeah I guess my need for such a word is some Canadian thing — anglophone, francophone and allophone are regular terms in the Canadian discourse and I reached for the analogue. There’s little precedent so I’m holding off. —Muckapedia 14:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Glen Breton Rare[edit]

This is not the only single malt whisky made outside Scotland. Bushmills 10-year-old Single Malt, from Northern Ireland, and Suntory's Yamazaki, which is made in Japan, are two others. There are others made in Australia and elsewhere. Perhaps "one of a number of single malt whiskies" might be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.20.82 (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Gaelic is not just a collection of old highland dialects[edit]

As a learner and enthusiast of Gaelic I have always been interested in the now extinct dialects of formerly Gaelic speaking areas in Scotland. Very recently I visited Cape Breton island and discussed Gaelic with Gaelic speakers on the island. It became clear from listening to the speakers and and their accounts of Gaelic on the island that Canadian Gaelic is now a beautiful hodge podge of old extinct and surviving dialects. This can be separated further however into idiolects which contain traits from the dialects spoken by their ancestors, as well as newly evolved dialectal regions such as the north shore where dialects that have developed from Lewis Gaelic are now spoken. The point is that it's not like you can go to cape Breton and hear dead dialects like it's a highland time capsule, the dialects have actually mixed and changed to create a broad collection of dialects that are unique to Nova Scotia/Cape Breton - i.e. Canadian Gaelic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.42.162 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. It seems you're suggesting the Gaelic spoken in Canada is a koiné, as is the case with Canadian French. Appeals to original research aren't really allowed, so I’d wonder if there is a print or web document that could substantiate your anecdotal description? It'd make for a great expansion of the article if there were. — Muckapedia (talk) 16e août 2012 21h45 (−4h)

I would recommend contacting the Gaelic College of Arts and Crafts on Cape Breton Island via email or letter. They have several Gaelic instructors who have conducted research into Canadian Gaelic on Cape Breton, they may have some texts you could use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.250.129 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Scottish Gaelic speaking population within Quebec[edit]

It is known that a substantial number of Scottish Gaelic-speaking settlers, almost entirely from the Isle of Lewis, settled in Quebec in areas such as Stornoway and Scotstown. There are several books written on the subject of the Gaelic in Quebec, the most notable (to my mind) being "Oatmeal and the Catechism" by Margaret Bennett, a respected authority on the history of Scottish Gaelic in Scotland and abroad. If I recall correctly, the book indicated that although Gaelic declined and ultimately withered away to nothing in the province, the language held on until roughly the 1960s-70s when the last Scottish Gaelic church services were held in certain key Highland-Quebecois settlements.

Many Quebecois Gaels apparently moved to the United States (Seattle) as they faced hardship in the province, rather than to other Gaelic-speaking areas such as Nova Scotia or Cape Breton Island. The descendants of these Quebecois Gaels subsequently lost their Gaelic and are now wholly assimilated, and although at least one man in the early 20th century was a self-styled "Gaelic bard" from Seattle, he largely wrote in English.

I believe that this would be a worthy expansion of the article, although I am unsure of exactly how to go about adding this information (with reference to the sources). Does anyone have an opinion on the subject?

--Breatannach (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian Gaelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Canadian Gaelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Canadian Gaelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Gaelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic's status as third most spoken language in Canada at the time[edit]

I do not think any of the sources in the article take into account Indigenous peoples or their languages. No information or data in the current sources even consider Indigenous peoples, let alone can definitively say there were more Gaelic language speakers in Canada than any of the main Indigenous languages such as Cree, Algonquin, Ojibwe, Inuktitut etc.

I think any statements should be prefaced with "European" - i.e. "Gaelic was the third most spoken European language in Canada at the time".

Certainly in this day and age I don't think I need to get into the details of why excluding Indigenous peoples from the written record of Canadian history is problematic, but happy to go there if some people still require this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adcspider (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main difficulty in this is that there are few (if any) Reliable Sources on the demographics of Indigenous people in the time period in question. I think at best we can only manage an educated guess. The demographic data on the European population of this period is (somewhat) more reliable. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

commonwealth English monarchy - say what?[edit]

I've removed this from the article:

During the early 1900s, the Gaelic language was nearly wiped out in Canadian schools, due to the increasing pressure of the commonwealth English monarchy, who had previously exiled many Scots during earlier years of conflict.

I'm sure it's supposed to mean something but as is it's complete nonsense. [C]ommonwealth English monarchy is a contradiction in terms and if it means anything at all it's presumably referring to the 1600s, not the 1900s. Plus there wasn't any exiling going on at the time. Peter Grey (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_Gaelic&oldid=1206527915"